therefore if you gave every poor person £10k, he/she would be able to live it up for a short time, but that 10k would not increase the actual amount of energy available to the world population in general.
so the person spending the 10k would in fact dilute the global economic system, not add to it.
When the 10k was gone, the poor person would be back to square one.
Similarly if you took Bezos’ billions and divided it up between the worlds poor. there would be a short term benefit for each one, but the spending would not increase the global energy reserves, which is the stuff we all need to exist.
Bezos Musk et al just sit on piles of money, and let off a billion or two in pointless space fireworks, a job creation scheme for ex NASA Phds. Gates is more responsible, and spends millions on cures for diseases that will ultimately increase the global population. He’s doing ‘the right thing’, I am just pointing out the consequences.
Not saying the current distribution of wealth is just. It most certainly isn’t. I am just pointing out what money really is, a token of energy exchange. No matter how much money you have, if it isn’t ultimately backed up by energy resources, it has no actual value.
The wealth held in just a few hands is an obscenity, but it is a system we’ve all contributed to. We based our economic thinking on the weird fallacy of infinite resources being available to support infinite money, forever.
Our daft politicians said it was so. And we, being even dafter, believed them, and voted them into office.
Now we complain that cash has accumulated unfairly, and want it redistributed, thinking all will be well.
Sorry folks, it was oil coal and gas that created our piles of cash, printing presses were just an accessory we used to delude ourselves. If we all had an extra 10k, spending it would be another way of chasing ever-reducing available resources